It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ques. for Believers that UFO's are only Military & Not ET related.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I'm really confused about where many of the members of this forum are coming from in regards to the topic of ET's and UFO's.

I'm getting the impression that some/many of you believe that the military is manufacturing free energy aircraft and those are what everybody is seeing up there. These aircraft can do 'out of this world' manuevers and use 'cloaking' technology for invisibilty and so on -- but it's all stuff that man has invented and not something we got from ET's from outer space right?

And for those of you who are adherents to this viewpoint on UFO's, what do you call yourselves?

Just wondering because it's clear that you believe that there are UFO's up there that are far, far advanced from even anything that NASA has or for that matter those advanced military craft that the public knows about including prototypes that are still on the drawing board.... but you all believe that it was people like Telsa who came up with the technology to build those UFO triangles and disc's and so on... that everybody is seeing up there but it's got nothing to do with aliens right? and it was all invented by our scientists throughout the ages. Am I correct about this?

I'm just trying to understand where many of you are coming from. thanks






[edit on 11-1-2007 by Palasheea]




posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just trying to understand those viewpoints of members of this board.

I already understand that skeptics do not believe that there are UFO's up there.

But I know that there are many other members of this board who think that there are UFO's but you believe that they are all man-made and that there are no such things as aliens or if there are, man has yet to encounter them, right?

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I think the most logical explanation for UFO's are military.

The logic goes as follows:

Known: The military researches advanced air and space craft.
Known: They have, in the past, used such craft without the knowledge of the general public.

Therefore: The most logical assumption on can make about UFO is that they are military in nature.

If a dead body of an alien were to fall in the proverbial laps of the scientific community, things would change.

There is no definite in UFO's. There is no available hard evidence one way or the other. So I think most of the military leaning people are so due to nothing more than logical deduction.

Fun Fact: The Stealth Fighter was designed in 1969 and made many flights in US skies but wasn't public until 1989. "Black triangle" UFO's had been reported in larger number than ever before between the 1970's and 1989.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
I think the most logical explanation for UFO's are military.

The logic goes as follows:

Known: The military researches advanced air and space craft.
Known: They have, in the past, used such craft without the knowledge of the general public.
I tend to believe that some of the UFOs flying around are indeed man made aircraft. But I do think that many of them are indeed extra terrestrial. I think this because I cant see the logical explanation for why any military would risk losing these things over some of the areas they are spotted over all around the world.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest

There is no definite in UFO's. There is no available hard evidence one way or the other. So I think most of the military leaning people are so due to nothing more than logical deduction.


I agree with you Quest that there is no hard evidence and by this I assume we are saying that photo's do not qualify as hard evidence which instead are in the soft evidence category.

But from my readings so far by those writings by various ufologists, I'm finding that I agree with Dr. Michael Salla's argument that many of these researchers are the first one's to admit that our gov't is engaged in a cover up where if there has been any hard evidence out there, the gov't has retrieved it but will not admit that they have it in their possession.

On the other hand, these same researchers who admit that there's a gov't cover up, also claim that their research and conclusions in this field are based on HARD EVIDENCE.... but this is paradoxical because according to them, only the gov't has that material and information (the Hard Evidence).... this confuses me.

So basically these same researchers who are like this are basing their conclusions about UFO'a and so on only on faith and not on hard evidence because they simply have not had access to that information and material. (the hard evidence).





[edit on 11-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DigThat
I cant see the logical explanation for why any military would risk losing these things over some of the areas they are spotted over all around the world.


I can.

Reconnaissance. Personnel movement. Cargo movement. Stealth testing on dense population areas. Pass over on way to destination. And the various other reason any other military aircraft might fly over any particular region.

Secret+ aircraft aren't announced when they are done testing... they would go into service and remain secret as long as there was a tactical or technological advantage to them being secret.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The problem with the "all UFOs are us" theory is a simple one.

UFO's with advanced flight characteristics were seen far before advanced R&D aircraft projects. Some of the biggest UFO flaps occurred during and after WWII, so if advanced craft by us, you can bet it would have been used in wartime, and no longer classified over 50 years later...


Many projects have come after that were previously classified (the stealth planes are good examples), so there's no logical reason to believe that ANYTHING we made over 50 years ago would still be classified...it'd be an antique.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
The problem with the "all UFOs are us" theory is a simple one.

UFO's with advanced flight characteristics were seen far before advanced R&D aircraft projects. Some of the biggest UFO flaps occurred during and after WWII, so if advanced craft by us, you can bet it would have been used in wartime, and no longer classified over 50 years later...


Many projects have come after that were previously classified (the stealth planes are good examples), so there's no logical reason to believe that ANYTHING we made over 50 years ago would still be classified...it'd be an antique.



If I understand, what you are saying is that UFO's prior to 1950 had flight characteristics that nothing of that time had. How do you know this?

Can you provide some sourced accounts of such UFO's? Specifically, ones that were documented contemporary to the sightings.

I'd be curious to see any documented reports that contain descriptions of flight characteristics not in line with the technology of 1950 or earlier. I've never seen any such reports.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   


If I understand, what you are saying is that UFO's prior to 1950 had flight characteristics that nothing of that time had. How do you know this?

Can you provide some sourced accounts of such UFO's? Specifically, ones that were documented contemporary to the sightings.

I'd be curious to see any documented reports that contain descriptions of flight characteristics not in line with the technology of 1950 or earlier. I've never seen any such reports.


I "know" this from the reported cases.

BlueBook is one such source of course. The war is rife with accounts from all sides of "foo-fighters", etc. This is pretty much common knowledge, but if you really want some concrete examples, it's a very quick research to do. Someone may beat me to it, but I'll follow up with it when not at work.

EDIT: Here's one such example. The most famous sighting, and the one that coined the term "flying saucer" by experienced pilot, Kenneth Arnold, who reported the objects flying faster than any conventional aircraft of the time, 1947. en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 12-1-2007 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Some UFO's today *might* be military technology but not all. How would you explain sightings before 1940? People have described lights in the sky since antiquity...

And as Gazrok said if the USA or other countries had such craft since pre- WW2 times they wouldn't be top secret anymore...



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
I can.

Reconnaissance. Personnel movement. Cargo movement. Stealth testing on dense population areas. Pass over on way to destination. And the various other reason any other military aircraft might fly over any particular region.

Secret+ aircraft aren't announced when they are done testing... they would go into service and remain secret as long as there was a tactical or technological advantage to them being secret.


They can do all those things with regular aircraft (and they are) so why would they risk losing the cream of the crop tecnology? Wouldnt that be pretty incompetent; if they are trying to cover up the technology that they have? To constantly use them all the time ALL OVER THE WORLD? That makes no sense, whatsoever. Now the stealth test is I guess plausible for some of them, but not to the extent that they are sighted.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok


EDIT: Here's one such example. The most famous sighting, and the one that coined the term "flying saucer" by experienced pilot, Kenneth Arnold, who reported the objects flying faster than any conventional aircraft of the time, 1947. en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 12-1-2007 by Gazrok]


Regarding the Arnold account...

Directly from your wiki source:
-"erratic" flight
-estimated 1200-1700mph air speed
-they were "round" and tapered "sharply to a point in the head and in an oval shape."

Here is a picture of what he saw.


I can see how one would think alien, and I would agree there is no conclusive proof either way. But lets apply knowns and use logic to see what is the most likely and logical explanation.

Knows:
-Flying Wing Aircraft were already invented and being tested by 1947. This account for the shape. Source
-The sound barrier was broken OFFICIALLY broken that year. Source

So what is more likely according to logic and knowns...

Your original claim was of flight characteristics that are unrealistic for contemporary human technology, but as of that year, 1947, it was publicly known that the speeds were possible and that shape of aircraft existed.

I find it more logical to think the US government keeps secrets (even all these years) than another intelligent species traveled here with technology we would be able to duplicate within a year or two.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DigThat
They can do all those things with regular aircraft (and they are) so why would they risk losing the cream of the crop tecnology? Wouldnt that be pretty incompetent; if they are trying to cover up the technology that they have? To constantly use them all the time ALL OVER THE WORLD? That makes no sense, whatsoever. Now the stealth test is I guess plausible for some of them, but not to the extent that they are sighted.


So you are saying there are no secret tech aircraft in service because "They can do all those things with regular aircraft"?

The vast majority of Military Aircraft contain secret technology that they risk every time they fly. The F117A that went down in Yugoslavia was considered a big loss because it had secret tech on it.
Source

More so... HERE is the wikipedia entry for the last time a top secret US aircraft was captured because it was lost during a mission over another country on the other side of the world.

They do exactly what you said makes no sense... and have been caught before. My guess is the lesson learned is a self destruct and bail out system. UFO crashes and cover up anyone?



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
As with most such original questions, there is, I believe no concrete answer. IMHO, there are lots of highly advanced, exorbitantly funded, black aircraft projects going on, and have been going on, for at least ½ a century.

Some of this aeronautical R&D results in craft that have amazing flight characteristics far beyond what any of us, or even most of the military brass could ever imagine as possible. As testing and refinement continues, often for many years, the ‘roll-out’ of such development is contained to ‘lowest profile’ operations in remote locations. Then, when the craft is ready for operational status, it may be suppressed or maintained in covert missions only, possibly for decades (e.g, blackbirds, stealth, etc.) to keep rivals and the curious at bay and to maintain strategic and political ‘leverage’ as long as possible.

With that in mind, again IMHO, there are ALSO craft that have displayed flight characteristic that I don’t believe human technology has mastered yet. This would include such things as accelerating to and decelerating from Mach “teens” in seconds, high-speed right angle turns and other maneuvers that would tear our planes (and pilots) apart, immense craft (some sightings include craft many kilometers in diameter), invisibility, materialization/de-materialization, shape-change and similar anomalies, rapid & multiple orbit/re-entry, and such things as hovering silently and motionless with no sound, no air disturbance, no heat signature, etc. Although we humans may be working on such technology, and in the case of the military, would love to obtain and utilize flight attributes such as these – we’re not there yet.

So who is?



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest

They do exactly what you said makes no sense... and have been caught before. My guess is the lesson learned is a self destruct and bail out system. UFO crashes and cover up anyone?


Those we're just the ones I mentioned as "regular" aircraft. Maybe I wasnt clear enough before, did you would think I meant that they use Boeing 747's as Spy craft? Those planes that have been captured (Last one was in China a couple years ago, right?) Are Nothing compared to what 'flying saucers' obviously are capable off.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Check closer....

The speed of sound is 770mph (at sea level).

Arnold's sighting was

"estimated 1200-1700mph air speed "

Again, it IS an example of a report, prior to 1950, of a craft exhibiting capabilities beyond even our most-advanced aircraft (per your request). Check and mate.


EDIT: The X-1 did get close to 1050mph as I recall, but never got near 1200-1700mph. Granted, Arnold's estimate could be off, but I only offered it as an example of a report, prior to 1950, that cited performance above and beyond our abilities at the time.

[edit on 12-1-2007 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
just my .02. I think that most of the craft that is spotted (@ Area 51, ect.) is military, although possibly not of completely human origin.
Like Quest said, if the F117 was designed in '69 what the hell is on the drawing board today?



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Check closer....

The speed of sound is 770mph (at sea level).

Arnold's sighting was

"estimated 1200-1700mph air speed "

Again, it IS an example of a report, prior to 1950, of a craft exhibiting capabilities beyond even our most-advanced aircraft (per your request). Check and mate.


EDIT: The X-1 did get close to 1050mph as I recall, but never got near 1200-1700mph. Granted, Arnold's estimate could be off, but I only offered it as an example of a report, prior to 1950, that cited performance above and beyond our abilities at the time.

[edit on 12-1-2007 by Gazrok]


I find it more likely that the military had ships a few hundred mph faster than the contemporary public ships than creatures from another planet flying in formation, in plain sight (two witnesses), in flying wings...

I also find it more likely that the estimate in air speed by a single person are off than the alien theory.

I'm not dismissing the possibility of aliens, I'm saying there are other options that I find more logical.

In the end we could do this forever though because there is no definite proof either way and we are both making assumptions left and right to support our arguments.

Also, just for the record, I think you are awesome, Gazrok. You are a very smart and well spoken guy who frames arguments in a way I can appreciate. The UFO community should be happy to have you on their team.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join